The reading and the lecturer are both about a policy, which is offering four-day workweek instead of five-day workweek to employees. The author of the reading believes that job for four-day a week would be helpful for economy, company and employee. The lecture casts doubt on the claim made in the reading passage. He thinks that offering employees four-day week will not enhance economic conditions, company's profits and quality of life.
First of all,the author claims that company profits will improve by this policy. He believes that company will have to pay less if employees are doing work for four-days instead of five-days. This point is challenged by the lecturer. He says that company have to spend more or alot more since then company would hire new employees and it would be very expensive in terms of training, medical benefits for new employees.
Secondly, the author states that, to make use of this policy, it might reduce unemployment in the country. He suggests that the company have to hire new workers for the work which generally reduced by this policy. The lecturer rebuts this argument. He argues that, then there would be decrease in stablity. He elaborates on this by mentioning the employees who work for five days will be more valuable than the employee who work for four days in management jobs.
Finally the author mentions that this policy might improve quality of life of employees. He is of the opinion that the employee can spend his time with family and in the things which interests him most. The lecturer on the other hand states that this will make employee inefficient. He puts forth the idea that it might harm their capabilities in a way, if they want to do work in challenging situations then it gonna be dificult for them.